Is Vivisection Immoral
Cruel, Useless .
and Unscientific ?
WALTER R. HADWEN, Esq.,
M.D., L.R.C.P., M.R.C.S., etc.,
STEPHEN PAGET, Esq., F.R.C.S.
HELD IN THE
Working Men's Hall
DECEMBER 3rd, 1908.
Price 1/6 per dozen ; 10/- per 100.
The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection,
32 Charing Cross, London, S. W.
HB IB. KXftf ul
The British Union
for the Abolition of Vivisection
) ■ »><
Foundress: FRANCES POWER COBBE.
H.S.H. Princess Ll'dwig Von
Lo WENSTEIN - WeRTHEIM .
The Lady Victoria Campbell.
The Countess of Dunraven.
Emma, Countess of Rayenswokth.
The Marchesa Lomellini
(Miss Mina Sandeman).
The Viscount Bangor.
The Viscountess Bangor.
The Viscountess Bolingbroke.
The Viscount Harberton.
The Viscountess Wolseley.
The Lady Wimborne.
The Lady Battersea.
The Lady Dunboyne.
The Lady Rosmead.
The Baroness de Knoop.
The Hon. Seymour F. Ormsby
Sir Charles Skelton.
Sir George Kekewich, M.P.
Sir J. Bamford Slack.
The Dean of Clonmacnoise.
Col. Sandys, M.P.
Robert Cameron, Esq., M.P.
W. Field, Esq., M.P.
J. Hodge, Esq., M.P.
J. R. Clynes, Esq., M.P.
Gilbert McMicking, Esq., M.P.
Richard Bell, Esq., M.P.
James O'Grady, Esq., M.P.
A. W. Black, Esq., M.P.
K. E. O'Brien, Esq., M.P.
Dr. Macnamaka, M.P.
Mrs. Charles Thomas.
Mrs. Frank Morrison.
W. M. Roscoe, Esq., J.P.
Mr 8. Roscoe.
William Tebb, Esq.
Hon. Secretary :
WALTER R. HADWEN, Esa., M.d!
Hon. Treasurer :
The Right Hon. VISCOUNT HARBERTON.
Headquarters of the Union
Miss B. E. KIDD.
: 32 Charing Cross, Whitehall, London, S.W.
Central Executive Committee :
Chairman : Rev. R. D. Monro, M.A.
The Lady Kathleen Bushe.
W. J. Cameron, Esq., M.D.
R. W. Martindale, Esq.
Miss S. S. Monro.
R. D. Prankerd, Esq., M.D.
Alf. Rose, Esq.
The Lady Rosmead.
Rev. P. W. Sparling, M.A.
Rev. J. Verschoyle, M.A.
Harold Whiston, Esq.
Mies A. F. Whiteley.
Rev. J. S. Woodhouse, M.A.
Lloyds Bank, Limited, 16 St. James Street, London, S.W.
Is Vivisection Immoral, Cruel,
Useless and Unscientific ?
WALTER R. HADWEN, Esq.,
M.D., L.R.C.P., M.R.C.S., Etc.,
STEPHEN PAGET, Esq., F.R.C.S.
HELD IN THE
WORKING MEN'S HALL, SHREWSBURY
DECEMBER 3RD, 1908.
Price 1/6 per dozen, 10/= per 100.
Published by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection,
32 Charing Cross, London, S.W.
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2012 with funding from
Duke University Libraries
IS VIVISECTION IMMORAL, CRUEL,
USELESS and UNSCIENTIFIC?
( Verbatim Report by the official shorthand writer of the
" Shrewsbury Chronicle. "J
The Working Men's Hall, Shrewsbury, was well filled on
the evening of December 3rd, on the occasion of a meeting held
under the auspices of the British Union for the Abolition of
Vivisection. The front portion of the Hall was occupied
almost exclusively by a large array of local doctors with their
households, and a considerable body of nurses in uniform.
The Chairman, the Rev. F. Roberts, vicar of St. Giles',
Shrewsbury, contrasted the dimensions of the meeting with one
held 12 years ago during the Church Congress in Shrewsbury,
when also he was chairman. He went on to explain that the
present meeting had been called for the purpose of listening to a
lecture by Dr. Hadwen, but had now resolved itself into a
debate in response to a challenge from the medical men of
Shrewsbury. For his part he considered Dr. Hadwen had offered
very generous terms to the other side. Two questions would
probably be discussed that night. The first would be, " Does
the end sanctify the means ? " and the second would be, " Is
that end a satisfactory one ? " Dr. Hadwen was approached,
he understood, with a view to allowing an equal amount of
time to that occupied by himself. That was rather an unusual
request, where a lecture with a definite object had been an-
nounced, but it was immediately complied with by Dr. Hadwen
— (hear, hear, and applause) — who offered to turn the meeting
into a debate in which both sides were to have an equal amount
of time, Dr. Hadwen reserving to himself the right of a brief
ten minutes introduction in order to move a resolution and
explain the basis of its provisions. Afterwards he (the Chair-
man) would call upon Mr. Stephen Paget to speak for twenty
minutes, and then Dr. Hadwen would follow for twenty minutes.
Fifteen minutes would then be given to some medical supporters
of vivisection, to whom Dr. Hadwen would reply, oecupying
fifteen minutes. Afterwards Mr. Paget would have ten minutes,
and then Dr. Hadwen would close the debate in a speech of
DR. HADWEN'S INTRODUCTION.
Mr. Walter Hadwen, M.D., L.R.C.P., M.R.C.S., &c, said :
I must apologise for not complying with the published announce-
ment to deliver a lecture upon the subject which has brought us
together, but as Mr. Paget, who was to lead the opposition, has
refused hitherto to meet me except under ludicrously unfair
conditions, and as he has now offered to do so, I feel that there
should be no hesitation on my part in according to an opponent
the justice and courtesy which has so far been uniformly denied
to me. (Hear, hear, and applause.) I propose to put to the
meeting the following resolution to be voted upon at the close of
the debate : " That this meeting looks upon vivisection as morally
and scientifically unjustifiable, and contends that it ought to be
By the term vivisection I use it in the broad sense, as
generally understood, signifying not only cutting operations, but
inoculations, which form a large proportion of the experiments
on animals, the injection of irritating matter into the eye, the
starvation of animals, or the feeding of them with nauseous
substances, the crushing of limbs, the extirpation of vital organs,
and so on. Vivisectors declare that the end justifies the means,
and the same reason has been given for the greatest tyrannies
and wickednesses which have disgraced the pages of history.
There could be no more immoral contention. (Applause.)
An intimate friend of Mr. Paget 's — Professor Starling —
told the Royal Commission recently that if there were no such
things as anaesthetics he would justify painful experiments
on animals, and men who had the moral courage to carry
out those experiments would be worthy of admiration rather
than condemnation. That is a cowardly utterance and contrary
to every principle of Christianity. (Applause.)
THE QUESTION OF PAIN.
But Mr. Paget may tell us, as he has said before at one
of his semi-private meetings, that he has never heard of a case
of intentional cruelty. I will not bandy words on the word
" intentional " : it is enough for me that there is cruelty, and
that if Mr. Paget knows nothing about it it is time he made
himself acquainted with the facts. (Hear, hear.) But what Mr.
Paget does not know there were some vivisectors candid enough
to admit. Prof. Pembrey, for instance, told the Royal Commis-
sion : " I think painful experiments are necessary ; I mean pain-
ful experiments as against experiments under anaesthetics. A
common-sense view should be taken of this question and pain
must be admitted. I admit I have done painful experiments,
and I am not ashamed of it. They are absolutely necessary."
And yet Mr. Paget told a Torquay audience a month ago
that he had never heard of any. (Laughter.) Professor
Thane told the Royal Commission : " Animals experimented
on under Certificate B. do suffer severely while under observa-
tion after the experiment." And " in some cases, under
Certificate A, the injection is followed by great pain and
suffering." Dr. Power, Chief Medical Officer of the Home
Office, admitted " no doubt but that pain or uneasiness will
afterwards arise in cases where disease is the result of the
experiment." Further, Professor Thane declared in making
fistulas into pancreas, gall bladder, stomach, and so on, " it is
quite likely that the animals suffer to a certain extent." Those
were vivisectors' own statements, and yet Mr. Paget had never
heard of any such thing. Those are grave admissions, and I
deny the right of any man to do evil that good might come.
Further, I deny that any good has come from vivisection,
its cruelty and its blood have led only to blunders and contra-
dictions, and have discovered nothing at all for the amelioration
or cure of human diseases. More than that, it is unscientific.
The anatomical and physiological construction of the lower
animals is different from that of men. Sir Frederick Treves
admitted thst he was led astray on this account by his experi-
ments on dogs, and Charcot, the greatest brain surgeon that ever
lived, admitted, in view of errors in brain surgery through
animal experiments, that " the study of the brain, if it is to bear
fruit, must be on man " — the anatamo-clinical method was the
only sure guide — i.e., bedside experience, followed by ,an
anatomical study on the post-mortem table. Moreover, an
animal under fright upon the torture trough is never in a
normal condition ; the anaesthetic likewise tends to abnormality.
The effects produced by drugs are largely different in animals
and man. In fact, Professor Starling, Dr. Power, and Professor
Thane have all admitted that " the last experiment must be on
man." If, then, the last experiment, according to vivisectors,
must be on man, the first real experiment must commence there,
and all the previous experiments on the lower creatures, with all
their cruelty, are uncertain and calculated to be misleading.
I declare that the vivisection of living animals is immoral,
cruel, useless, and unscientific, and ought to be abolished.
MR. PAGET'S OPENING SPEECH.
Mr. Paget was loudly cheered on rising. He said : I am
very sorry I have lost my note-book. I had written a most
beautiful speech, and I cannot find it. What I have to say must
be said in a most halting fashion unless they find the note-book.
This is a very funny debate. I have got to speak first. It is
rather like beginning with the dessert and working back from
the cheese until you get to the soup. (Laughter.) I never asked
to come here. I did not arrange anything. I am not here in
any particular capacity, except as a friend of doctors in Shrews-
bury. You know those doctors : they are here to-night. You
know the Shrewsbury doctors. You see them in and out at their
work ; at work all day and a good part of the night. You don't
know Dr. Hadwen, and he does not know Shrewsbury : I don't
know whether he knows the Abbey from St. Mary's, or the
Abbey from the Post Office. He is an ardent opponent of
vaccination — (Dr. Hadwen: "Hear, hear," and applause) — and
I hope if small-pox ever comes down among the Mardol slums
those who now applaud him will not have cause to regret their
decision to-night. I have to speak for 999 doctors out of every
1000. I am only going to tell you what every doctor believes. I
have got to tell you something about the real amount of pain
that is caused by all these experiments, and something about
the results that have been got from them.
Now let me first say, I have not the faintest wish to
see unrestricted experiments on animals in this country,
and I don't know anybody who has. (Hear, hear.) I
think that not only for the happiness of the public mind,
not only for the standard we always maintain in this
country of a decent care and regard for animals, but also in the
interest of science it is most desirable that experiments on
animals should be kept in the hands of experts. I cannot
imagine anything worse than if everyone were enabled to do
exactly what he liked without regard to his position in science or
in medicine, or anything else, or without regard to his previous
training or his mental gifts. If every ambitious young chap
wanted to discover a cure for something or other the whole
ground would be blocked by those who thought they had found
a wonderful cure, and half the time would be spent in proving
that what they had found was not true. Nothing better could
be done than the restriction of vivisectional experiments on
animals. For 12 years I was secretary of the Association which
looks after the working of the Act, and advises the Home Office
as to every application for a license or for a certificate under the
Act. That is to say, for 12 years I was in constant correspon-
dence with the Home Office over the whole business of experi-
ments on animals in this country. Now it is quite certain that
the working of the Act, and the administration of the Act, are
very different matters. If you read the text of the Act you will
see that all sorts of things are allowed. Nothing is said about
antiseptic precautions, nothing is said about killing the animal
if suppuration occurs, nothing is said as to the number of
animals that may be used in a 'series of experiments, nothing is
said of the sending in of an interim report. All sorts of restric-
tions are in force by the Home Office which are not in the text
of the Act. There is a great deal of difference between the
administration of the Act and the text of the Act, and anybody
who has worked for as many years as I did for this Act will
understand that the Act is administered not only in the letter
but in the spirit.
THE WORKING OF THE ACT.
Now I come to say something of the work that is actually
done under the Act. Understand, I admire the Act. Of course
it is an antiquated, obsolete, and out-of-date old Act ; it is 32
years old, and it was drafted before there was any such thing as
inoculation. It was drafted by a lot of people who were not
prophets ; they did not know what was coming ; they had hardly
heard of Pasteur ; there was no provision for inoculation nor for
a good many other things which have been discovered. The
Act is out of date, and I hope the present Royal Commission
will put the Act into the melting-pot ; Certificate A and B you
hear so much about will go into the melting-pot, and the Act
will be brought into shape that will fit the needs of the present
day, and I have no doubt more inspection will be arranged for,
and a very good thing, too. When the Act was passed there
were but a few hundred vivisections. Then came bacteriology,
the work of Pasteur, and Lister, and their followers, and the
work went up by leaps and bounds. Now the amount of work
is a thousand-fold what it was. The result is that the inspectors
are overworked : there are not enough of them. It is not only
the work of actually looking on in the laboratory and seeing the
animals in the laboratory that have been inoculated : it is the
correspondence, etc. For my own part, I hope the new Act will
provide for an increase in the number of Inspectors — it is most
proper and right that it should.
Now I come to the work that is actually being done in our
own country at the present time under the Act. I am not going
to range over the whole history of the thing, as Dr. Hadwen
proposes. He may have heard of dreadful things a long time
ago and a long way off. Our business is with the work in our
own country at the present time. (Dr. Hadwen: Hear, hear.)
What is the fact about that work ? Of all experiments made on
animals in this country 96% per cent, are of the nature of
inoculations. In them there is no sort or kind of surgical
operation on the animal. It is not cut open, it is not
cut, it is not mutilated, and it is not put under an anaesthetic :
the actual inoculation is the prick of a needle. (Hear, hear.)
Now the results of the inoculation. These inoculations are done,
a great part of them, for two great diseases which are the
scourge of our nation — tuberculosis and cancer. I may say-
that these two diseases are inoculated into animals not to please
any men of science, but to please you. They are done by the
Government, they are done by the Home Office, by the War
Office, and by the Board of Agriculture and its officials ; Muni-
cipal Corporations and County Councils order all these inocula-
tions. The testing of milk, the testing of cattle is part and
parcel of the service of the public health. It is you who
appoint, you who pay, you who approve the vivisectors. For the
mere testing of milk and meat, for the mere guarding of your
food supplies, thousands of animals are inoculated, vivisected if
you like : the work is part of the work of the Government, part
of the work of the public bodies. What is the pain of the
operation for tubercle ? How many of you are there who have
not seen a child with a tuberculous gland in its neck ? The
gland may suppurate, but which of you does not know children
with glands in their necks running about as happy as other
children ? Why should a tuberculous gland be painless in a
child and painful in a guinea pig ? (Hear, hear.) Besides, when
the guinea pig has got an enlarged gland the experiment is done,
and the pig is killed. Nothing is gained by keeping a guinea
pig with an enlarged gland in its neck. You inject the guinea
pig with tubercle, by-and-bye the gland enlarges ; if the pig gets
off its food you kill it.
Cancer — what is the pain of inoculation of cancer ? The
great increase — the number which seems so alarming to you
anti-vivisectionists — is the inoculation of mice with cancer. That
is the work of the Imperial Research Fund. There were 73,000
experiments made on animals in 1907. If I remember aright,
out of those no less than 40,000 were inoculations of mice with
cancer. Out of those 40,000, again I am right in saying, only
about 25 per cent, were successful — that is to say, 10,000 mice
got a little nodule of cancer under the skin. Now a nodule of
cancer under the skin is painless, and the doctors wish to God
it was painful, and then they would have a better story to tell of
the treatment of cancer. (Applause.)
It is just because cancer in its early stages is painless that
it is such a damnably serious matter to have it. If cancer had a
painful right of way you would take alarm, you would have
something done, and you might never have it again. As it is
now, it happens that the doctor is saying to the patient, " Why
did you let it go on so long ? " And the patient says, " Because
it was not painful." And if that is the case with 'a man and a
woman, how much pain does a mouse have with a little
nodule of cancer under the skin? Before the Royal
Commission the President of the Royal College of Surgeons
explained all about that. He told them the mice sleep, they
feed, they seem quite comfortable ; there are no nerves running
into the tiny little nodule, if you squeeze it they don't seem to
mind, and if they get a chance they breed. He said there were
two sets of mice divided by a little partition, and they nibbled
down the partition and bred. It is absurd to talk of torture in
that sort of work. (Hear, hear.) Ninety-six per cent, of these
sort of things are inoculations. I do not deny there is pain
caused by inoculation. There were rats inoculated with lock-
jaw : they were in pain for a quarter of an hour — the same sort
of thing as if you had set rat poison about the house. Have you
ever seen a case of lock-jaw ? If you had you would let a
thousand rats be inoculated — (hear, hear, and applause) — not to
save yourselves, not from any selfish motives, only that you
know that there are men and women who will die of it, a certain
number bound to die of it. You will do anything to save these
unknown men and women from dying of lock-jaw. (Applause.)
That is 96^ per cent, of all the experiments on animals. I don't
know whether there are any experiments being made with lock-
jaw now ; I hope there are. (Hear, hear.)
Now about the remainder : the experiments in physiology in
which the animal is kept under ansesthetics. Professor Starling
said in the course of 17 years constant work he had never once
seen pain inflicted in a physiological experiment. He is a man
of the nicest honour, of the prettiest honour. He won't shoot —
he thinks it cruel. The President of the National Anti- Vivisec-
tion Society, which is eight times the size of Dr. Hadwen's
Society, is a great sportsman. He is known in the newspapers
for his big shoots, his country-house parties, and so on.
(Laughter and applause.) He is the President of Mr. Coleridge's
society and shoots, but Professor Starling won't shoot.
If you don't believe me, here are one or two other beautiful
Americans — you are bound to believe them. (Laughter.) Here
is Dr. Hodge. I don't know much about him, but I daresay he
is a great swell over there. He says in more than 10 years'
experiments in various laboratories in his country and abroad he
has never had occasion to perform or witness an experiment of
a painful class, and Dr. Carrel, who is a great professor, a pro-
fessor of physiology at Harvard, says, " I can testify to the same
experience in my own career of 12 years."
I want to speak about myxoedema, yellow fever, plague,
rabies. How can I do it in the time ? But you have got your
own doctors here ; if you don't believe me, and even if you don't
believe Dr. Hadwen — (laughter) — ask them. Here you have to-
night men whom you know and trust — no strangers, men you
know. Take their advice in this matter. Now I have no time
to talk science, I have only time to talk morality ; I am going to
talk a little about the morality of anti-vivisection. I don't
find it easy to see it. (Hear, hear.) Anti-vivisection is such
a fine thing — it makes such an appeal to you. But an
appeal made so ambitious as that is bound to regard the whole
moral law — it is bound to regard the law of peace, and the law
of charity, and the law of truth. Now, what has anti-vivisection
to do with peace any more than Jehu in the Bible story ? There
are 17 anti-vivisection societies — I believe there are 18 now, and
they quarrel like cats. (Laughter.) They are divided into two
great camps — one who wants to get everything they can, and
one who wants to get everything whether they can or can't.
(Laughter.) Some call themselves Restrictionists ; some call
themselves Abolitionists. They quarrel, they denounce each
other. No one has been more furiously denounced than Dr.
Hadwen by other anti-vivisectionists — (laughter) — and he has
done his share. Perhaps I should not say that, but, at any rate,
they don't have much to say to him, nor he to them. The only
thing they are agreed upon is getting in the money, and they
have got in £8o,000, and they have done with it nothing. I can't
find out what they have done. They have been at work 35 years ;
they began when the Act was passed ; there are 17 of them ; I
cannot find out what they have done. What have they done
with the money ? The biggest society of all accuses all the little
societies of spending it on entirely unnecessary salaries of
officers. The biggest society says : " I cannot be responsible
for a lot of societies that print a lot of extremely inaccurate
literature." (Laughter.) You cannot find out what they have
done. Experiments on animals with the discovery of bacteriology
have gone up by leaps and bounds, and really if you look at the
record from year to year of the number of experiments they
might all have been vivisection societies —
(At this point the bell rang, and Mr. Paget resumed his seat.)
DR. HADWEN'S REPLY.
Dr. Hadwen, replying, said ; Mr. Paget opened by telling us
this was a funny debate, but he has made it funnier. (Hear,
hear.) He has not attempted to tackle one point out of the
whole of the points which I laid down for him to meet, as to the
morality or the scientific character of vivisection. lie has had
twenty minutes, and up to the present time he has not proved one
single point. (Applause.)
He tells us that I have practically the whole medical pro-
fession against me. Well, I think if we look back through
history we shall find that right never has been with majorities.
(Hear, hear.) But it does not follow because there are large
numbers against me that I am therefore wrong. What we have
to do with is to discuss not the question of majorities or minori-
ties, but whether vivisection is right or whether vivisection is
wrong. (Cheers.) He told us vivisection ought to be kept
in the hands of experts. My opinion is this — if there is
one person in the whole of God's creation that wants
looking after it is an expert. (Laughter and applause.) It does
not matter what department it is, an expert is one that requires
to be very closely watched. Mr. Paget has gone into the
question of the Act of Parliament. He appears to know a great
deal as to what the Royal Commission is going to do. He
appears to be in the secret of the Royal Commission. He says
they are going to put Certificate A and Certificate B into the
melting-pot. He does not tell us what it is going to turn out,
but he says we want more power in regard to bacteriology.
Considering there are 70,000 experiments in a year, as he tells us,
already, Heaven only knows what we are going to get to next,
if we are going to increase that sort of thing. (Hear, hear)
He says the present Act is antiquated. The present Act is
simply this ; The first part says that no person is to vivisect
unless the animal is placed under an anaesthetic, and that it is
to be killed before it recovers. But the second part of the Act
will allow a certificate to be taken out to perform any experi-
ments whatever that may pass the supervision of the Home
Office and the So; iety for the Advancement of Medicine by
Research. That is practically a Vivisection Society, composed
of vivisectors, to whom is referred every application for a
vivisection experiment. And that is the character of the
administration which Mr. Paget has dilated so much upon ; an
administration which is absolutely contradictory.
He tells us that at the present time the inspectors are over-
worked. I don't know how that can be, for according to a statement
made before the Royal Commission by no less a person than the
Chief Inspector himself, out of the 2,506 vivisections that were not
inoculations he himself had only seen in the past year 15. That
did not look very much like overwork. (Hear, hear.) There
are two inspectors for the whole of England and Wales. That
is the total staff, and it was acknowledged by the Chief Inspector
that no one complained at the present time of red tape as they
used to do. The Chief Inspector told the Assistant Inspector
that he was to visit registered places about three times a year,
and said " he expressly told me I was not to act as a detective."
So we are to have more of that kind of thing, says Mr. Stephen
Paget. The inspectors are to be increased ; we are to have men
who are not to be like other inspectors, but who are simply to
look at the condition of the laboratories, and who are not to
exercise anything like detective powers over those who are
carrying on the work behind the laboratory doors ! My own
impression about the matter is that to increase the number of
inspectors will be one of the most dangerous things that can
possibly be done in regard to the vivisection of animals. And
why ? Because you are creating a great vested interest in vivi-
section itself, and the very men who will be appointed to look
after vivisection will be the men who are keenly and financially
interested in keeping this abominable system going. (Hear,
hear, and applause.)
THE PRICK OF A PIN.
He tells us that inoculation is nothing more nor less than
the prick of a pin. As Sidney Smith once said, " I should like
to know what the dog has to say about that." (Laughter, and
hear, hear.) It is all very well for him to say the mouse feels
nothing. Somebody comes and sees this creature swollen up
with a tumour three times its body weight. (Laughter, and cries
of " No " from the doctors.)
These medical men in front of me say " No." That only
shows what has been proved over and over again that medical
men who profess to speak with authority on this subject don't
know a bit what is being done in the laboratories. (Applause,
loud and continued.) Thank you, but pray don't waste my
time. These medical men don't know what they are talking
about. The tumour that is created in the mouse under the
Cancer Research Fund is not human cancer at all : it is Jensen's
tumour. And the character of that tumour shows conclusively
that it is no guide whatever to the elaboration of the human
cancer, because that growth extends in the mouse to three times
its own weight, and I challenge any one of these medical men
who are boo-ing at me to-night to disprove a single word of what
I say in regard to it.
Dr. Urwick : May I ask, have you ever seen it ?
Dr. Hadwen : Sit down ; sit down.
Dr. Hadwen, resuming : We were told it was only the prick
of a pin in regard to the pain that is actually caused.
Supposing the animals could themselves talk, we should have
some grounds for believing it. But animals don't talk. Vivi-
sectors do talk, — (laughter, and hear, hear) — and when they come
to judge the pain animals suffer with these tumours inside them
and profess to gauge that pain according to the suffering human
beings pass through, then I say they have no right to come
here and talk in that way, and say it means nothing more than
the prick of a pin. It may be only the prick of a pin to inject a
disease into that animal's body, but when that disease slowly
generates, when that disease increases and goes on until, as 1
have seen them by the hundred in the Pasteur Institute in Paris,
the victims are in the greatest pain and agony, then I say it is
nothing but fooling to stand here and talk about the mere prick
of a pin. It is nothing more nor less than a discredit to
humanity to inflict such suffering and pain as I have seen upon
these poor, helpless creatures who cannot defend themselves
against a higher power. (Loud applause.)
Again, Mr. Paget spoke about tuberculosis. That it was
simply an enlargement of a gland, and all that sort of thing.
Very well, I don't know why we should give these enlarged
glands to these animals. If anything had ever been gained by it
all well and good, but has anything ever been gained by it ?
^"Yes" and applause.) Very well, you cry "Yes." We will
turn to no less a person with regard to tuberculosis than Dr.
Koch. Dr. Koch in his " Cure of Consumption," page 8, refers
to experiments upon guinea pigs. Dr. Koch is the man
who is supposed to have discovered the tubercle bacillus, the
man who invented tuberculin, and who declared emphatically that
phthisis can be cured with certainty by this remedy, yet had to
acknowledge before a large number of scientific men in
London that after all his bombastic utterances there was
no cure for consumption but God's fresh air. (Hear, hear, and
applause.) He says, " Here again is a fresh and conclusive proof
of that most important rule for all experimentalists, that an
experiment upon an animal gives no certain indication of the
result of the same experiment upon a human being." (Cheers.)
THE RIGHTS OF ANIMALS.
Now Mr. Paget has quoted lock-jaw. He said, had you ever
seen a person die of lock-jaw you would be willing for thousands
of rats to suffer. Why ? Because you see a person die of lock-
jaw what right have you to go and torture a thousand rats, even
if they are only vermin? (Hear, hear.) He says he does not
know if lock-jaw experiments are being carried on now, but he
hopes so. I hope not. The fact is, they have been given up
simply because they have turned out to be a failure.
Mr. Paget : I only said as far as I know no experiments on
that subject are being made in England.
Mr. Hadwen : And I will tell Mr. Paget why :— The chief
adviser of the Board of Agriculture told the Royal Commission,
" I cannot say that tetanus serum is any advantage as a curative
agent," and " the serum used in a case of tetanus is not efficacious
after the symptoms are manifest." And Dr. Morris, the President
of the Royal College of Surgeons, said, " as a curative it has
been practically given up." Further, Dr. Whitla remarks, " not-
withstanding all the reported successes, there is little evidence of
the value of injections of the anti-tetanic serum." Therefore, in
the face of the evidence of these men, vivisectors themselves, of
the absolute failure of tetanic serum, I ask why, because you see
a man die of lock-jaw, you should go and torture thousands of
rats, when according to their own evidence their own experi-
ments have proved to be futile ? (Applause.)
He says that Prof. Starling, whom he describes as a man of
such pretty honour that he will not shoot, in the course of 17
years, had never seen a case of pain in his laboratory. Here I
will quote from Prof. Starling himself. He wrote in his
" Elements of Human Physiology," speaking of nerve
stimulants, " They may produce one or more of four effects.
(i) Pain as evidenced by the movements of an animal not fully
under the influence of the anaesthetic." How does he know that ?
Prof. Starling speaks from personal experience ; he speaks of
pain being evidenced by the movements of the animal. On
another page he enlarges upon the fact of such stimulation
producing pain. How could Prof. Starling say that a painful
stimulation of the nerve produces a certain result unless he had
produced that pain and seen that pain for himself? And yet
Mr. Paget tells us for 17 years he has never seen pain in the
laboratory ! (Laughter and applause.)
We don't want to make this earth a hell for animals. It is
clear enough from the statements I produced from vivisectors
themselves when I gave my introductory remarks that there is
pain. That there is pain, and severe pain, is acknowledged by the
vivisectors themselves, not as he says years ago in lands across the
sea, but at home, and by the Home Office and Government Inspec-
tors who declared it not six months ago before the Royal Com-
mission. What we wish to see is this : There is Martin's Act at
the present time which says any person guilty of cruelty to any
animal shall be brought up before the Bench and punished for
his cruelty. A costermonger may be summoned for working a
donkey when unfit, or ill-using the animal. He may plead that
because he has got a wife and family starving at home he was
obliged to take and work that poor creature, although
it was suffering. But the magistrates will say " we have
nothing to do with the benefits you say are to be derived from
the results of your cruelty : you have been cruel, and therefore
we fine you and punish you for what you have done." And what
we declare is this, that the scientist has no right to be placed on
a higher level than the costermonger. It is a disgrace that in
this land of boasted Christianity and justice there should be one
law for the rich and influential and another law for the poor.
(Applause, long continued.)
DR. URWICK'S SPEECH.
Dr. Urwick said : My only excuse for speaking to-night is
that I think amongst all the people present to-night of the
members of the profession, I may say I have seen more experi-
ments on animals than anybody else here, and I think it is only
fair that I should give you my experience, and afterwards my
opinion on the matter. First let me say that if anybody says
that no amount of benefit to humanity justifies cruelty to
animals, I honour that man to a certain extent, but I cannot
understand him. (Hear, hear.) I only honour him if he does
not use animals for any purpose of his own, if he does not eat
them or use them for any purpose by which they are put to pain
or inconvenience. (Hear, hear.) To be thorough he must not
do that, and I can only honour people who are thorough in that
manner. I have worked in the Physiological Laboratory at
Cambridge (where many awful things have been said to be done),
in the Pathological Laboratory at Cambridge (where more awful
things are said to be done), the Pathological Laboratory at St.
Bartholomew's Hospital under Professor Klein. I have worked
in these four laboratories, and may I testify to you, and swear if
you wish, that I have never seen any unnecessary pain inflicted
upon animals. (Hear, hear, and applause.) That is my own
personal experience. Some of you know me, I am not a habitual
liar — (laughter) — and that I will swear to — I have never seen un-
necessary pain inflicted. The medical profession cannot get out
of the responsibility by saying we don't know of the experiments.
(Hear, hear.) We do know.
A few years ago doctors and scientists were quite separate :
now, thanks to the improved education of doctors, a doctor and
a scientist are synonymous terms. All doctors are scientists,
and we are all obliged to know before we are qualified all that is
possible about these scientific facts and theories. I say we all
know these things are done, and no amount of quibbling that we
have not seen them can relieve us of our responsibility. This
attack on vivisection is an attack on the medical profession.
(Hear, hear, and applause.) We cannot get out of it, and there
are only two ways of looking at it : either we of the medical
profession are so ignorant that we don't know what is right and
what is wrong, what is scientific and what is unscientific, or,
knowing that, our love of blood and cruelty, whichever way you
like to put it, has so blunted our wisdom and knowledge that we
cannot apply it, and we cannot see that these experiments are
blind, blood-thirsty, and wicked.
THE VOICE OF AUTHORITY.
I should like to ask you, whether you signify your approval
or not of the resolution, whether you agree to that. There is no
other issue : that is the clear issue. The medical profession as
a whole aoprove of these experiments, in spite of what Dr.
Hadwen says. They know them thoroughly, and know what is
being done, and if they don't oppose them, as Dr. Hadwen, to
his credit does, anybody who does not oppose them approves of
them, and the clear issue is either to prove to us you do or you
don't know. You are either ignorant, which is Dr. Hadwen's
phrase, or you are cruel and bloodthirsty. May I say also this ?
The experiments I have seen done are exceedingly unpleasant,
very very distasteful to me. I always hated them. Nobody
enjoys seeing operations on people. There is a scientific interest
in them, but it is unpleasant and loathsome. We do it
because we think it is right. (Hear, hear, and applause.) We
know it adds to our knowledge, and we think it is to the benefit
of humanity. (Hear, hear, and applause.) We may be wrong :
if Dr. Hadwen is cleverer than we are then we are wrong. Other-
wise if we are not fools we are knaves, and we are cruel, we are
heartless brutes, and that is the clear issue before you to-night.
That is the clear issue: the whole medical profession are ignorant
or else they are knaves. I have never seen unnecessary cruelty.
I have seen very unpleasant things done. I have seen them done
by people who have the same feelings as myself, and they have
always done them in the most humane manner possible.
You say the expert is a man not to be trusted. That does
not mean anything, but I will say this : you know the medical
profession among you, you know what lives they have saved. I
know myself from knowledge got from learning in other ways,
and learning got from experiments on animals. Those two facts
are bound up together: you cannot separate what is got from
experiments on animals and what is got in other ways. Any-
one who disapproves of experiments on animals and is a doctor
should at once give up practice, because he cannot separate the
knowledge got from experiments on animals and the knowledge
got in other ways. You cannot separate the two. Dr. Hadwen,
to be thorough and honest, should give up practice entirely.
(Hear, hear, and applause.) From time immemorial vivisection
has been done, and from time immemorial things have been
found out by it. They might have been found out otherwise
after many years, by other methods — that is impossible to prove.
Things have been found out lately. Things might have been
found out in ten or twenty years' time, but in the meantime how
many valuable lives have been lost ! (Hear, hear.) I hope you
will remember it is either a case of the doctors being honest and
straightforward, and wishing to do their best for humanity, or
not — there is nothing else. (Hear, hear, and applause.)
DR. WHEATLEY'S SPEECH.
Dr. Wheatley (County Medical Officer of Health) said : I
shall confine myself in these remarks simply to the bearing of
the question on the protection of the public health. I shall not
deal with whether it is admissable in any circumstances to per-
form experiments upon animals. I shall take it for granted that
if we can see an enormous benefit to humanity by experiments
upon animals, and that those experiments are conducted with
the least possible pain, or without pain altogether, then it is
perfectly right that those experiments should be made. (Hear,
hear, and applause.)
Now I shall confine myself to the bearing upon three
diseases — tuberculosis, diphtheria, and small-pox. We shall
shortly be having in this county a large meeting, I hope, to
consider the prevention of tuberculosis. (Hear, hear, and
applause.) One aspect of the prevention of tuberculosis is to
provide milk free from the tubercle bacillus. Now it is perfectly
clear and well understood in the medical profession that at the
present time the only way we can tell whether the milk contains
tubercle germs is by inoculating an animal, say a guinea-pig,
with a portion of the milk treated in a certain way. If we wish
to have a pure milk supply to our town we have to sample the
milk that comes in, inoculate it into the guinea-pig, and in that
way we find out whether it is liable to convey tubercle or not,
and the farm will be visited and the animals eliminated. That
is being done at the present time in the large cities in this
country— in Manchester, in Liverpool, and to some extent in
Birmingham, and the milk is being freed from the poison of
tubercle. The experiments that have to be made for this pur-
pose are certainly painless except for the prick of the needle.
The growth that takes place is undoubtedly a painless growth.
We can judge this with certainty, because similar growths in the
human subject are painless. And yet by these simple experi-
ments we are able to detect the most serious poison in the milk,
we shall be able to free the milk supplies of our large towns, and
be able to prevent the serious diseases in our children which kill
.so many of them — (hear, hear, and applause) — phthisis of the
intestines and of the joints and bones that so commonly affect
children. Now is it an adequate result or is it not that we can
free our milk supply in this way, and that we can protect the
mass of the population from these diseases? (Hear, hear, and
applause.) I say it is an adequate result of these painless
injections. (Hear, hear, and applause.)
I wish to speak on the question of diphtheria. Personally,
I have an enormous experience of the value of anti-toxin in the
cure or the prevention of the spread of diphtheria. (Hear, hear.)
All medical men, I think, almost without exception, will admit
that the injection of anti-toxin, which we have only been able to
arrive at from these experiments, will cure diphtheria when
injected early enough, and will prevent it if injected before the
attack. (Hear, hear, and applause.) It is hardly necessary for
me to say anything with regard to vaccination, but I have no
hesitation in saying this county, since I have been in it, would
have had most serious epidemics of small-pox if it had not been
that the majority of the people were protected by vaccination.
Chairman : Now you have one minute more.
DR. SPRIGG'S REMARKS.
Mr. Sprigg, another local doctor, said : Recently we had a
man suspected of anthrax, who had a pustule on his arm. The
doctor very wisely took some stuff from that and injected it into
a guinea-pig. The guinea-pig died, and that proved pretty con-
clusively that the man had anthrax. That man would certainly
have been a dead man in a week if it had not been for what was
done to the guinea pig. (Hear, hear.)
DR. HADWEN ANSWERS.
Dr. Hadwen, replying, said : We have had now three
medical men who have dealt with the subject. The first one,
Dr. Urwick, has devoted himself nearly the whole time to en-
larging upon what Mr. Stephen Paget said in his first address, viz.,
as to the value of the opinion of the majority of medical men. I
again assert I care nothing for the opinion of the majority of
medical men. (Laughter and applause). But what I want
proved is that the majority of medical men are right, and none
of these medical men have done so yet. (Renewed applause).
Dr. Urwick says he has never seen any unnecessary pain
inflicted upon animals. That blessed word " unnecessary " may
cover a multitude of sins — (hear, hear) — and what Dr.
Urwick may consider unnecessary pain and what another
person may consider necessary pain, and what the poor animal
may consider necessary are all vastly different things.
He says a medical man must be either ignorant or cruel.
I will tell you candidly from my experience of the matter I
don't believe my brother medical men are as a rule intentionally
cruel. (Laughter). I have given you instances of absolute cruelty
and acknowledged cruelty by vivisectors themselves, and no
medical man has dared to attempt to disprove these statements,
but I must candidly say that I do consider the majority of my
medical brethren are ignorant upon this subject. (Laughter and
applause). And what is more, out of scores and scores of my
brother medical men to whom I have spoken upon the subject,
everyone of them up to the present time has candidly confessed
to me that he is ignorant. (Laughter).
Now, he says that a person has a right to vivisect because
it adds to knowledge, and he says " we think it is for the
benefit of humanity." It is all very well to consider it adds to
knowledge and that it is for the benefit of humanity, but what I
have tried to get at is, is this proved? (Laughter). It is all
very well to say it adds to knowledge ; I say it does not. It is
all very well to say it has been proved to result in the benefit of
humanity ; I say it has never been of the slightest benefit in the
amelioration or the cure of any human disease — (" No, no," from
medical men) — and I want someone to prove that it has. It is
no use making statements — we want proofs. (Hear, hear, and
He says " you cannot separate the knowledge obtained by
vivisection from other things." Then let me know definitely
what is the knowledge you have had from vivisection ; let me
know what you claim is the result of it. If you don't know, as
Dr. Urwick appears to admit, then we will leave the subject, but
if there are benefits be prepared to say what they are and I will
oe prepared to meet the assertions. (Applause).
Now I admire Dr. Wheatley. (Laughter). Dr. Urwick has
done nothing but make assertions and has proved nothing, but
Dr. Wheatley has attempted to prove something and I admire
him for it. He says " vivisection is for the protection of public
health," and he instances first of all the case of tuberculosis.
Very well, then, let us look at tuberculosis. He lays great stress
upon the discovery of the tubercle bacillus. But supposing you
have the man who discovered the tubercle bacillus, Prof. Koch,
telling the Scientists in London two or three years ago that
bovine tuberculosis was not communicable to man at all ? If
that is the case, all these experiments upon the milk are absolutely
useless. (Hear, hear.). Then we have the Tuberculosis Com-
mission in London. They spent £48,000 to prove that Koch was
all wrong ; these English vivisectionists contradicted the German
vivisectionists, and came to the opposite conclusion. Last month
we had the International Tuberculosis Congress in Washing-
ton, and they were in such a hopeless muddle that they had been
experimenting upon some charity children in Hungary to try to
settle the question that way, and the Washington Council had
the audacity to provide ten more poor charity children to enable
those scientists to carry on their experiments and to try to come
to a scientific conclusion. And what was the result ? Why the
scientists, with Prof. Koch and, other savants of the Tuber-
culosis Congress, came to high words and noisy squabbles,
and they left the whole thing absolutely unsettled after all.
And yet Dr. Wheatley told you it is absolutely necessary to be
examining your milk for the bacillus when the leading experts
upon the subject cannot agree among themselves as to its value.
(Laughter, and hear, hear).
But how does Dr. Wheatley explain this: — Moeller — a
scientist of European reputation, declared at Eastbourne in IQ02,
when Koch read his paper, that he had found a bacillus in the
dung of healthy cows that could not be distinguished from the
tubercle bacillus either by the microscope or by staining? Pray,
what value are Dr. Wheatley's investigations in guinea pigs, when
the cow itself declines to afford any satisfactory evidence upon the
subject? (Laughter and applause'. Why, actually Professor
Stockman himself, Chief Veterinary Officer of the Local Govern-
ment Board, told the Royal Commission in answer to question
3082 that he could not say positively that the bacilli he finds in
milk are tubercle bacilli. How on earth, then, can Dr. Wheatley
be positive as to his own conclusions in Shropshire ? Professor
Stockman owned that " owing to the similarities there is a great
possibility of error." Furthermore, he declared that mere
microscopical examination for the tubercle bacillus is not
reliable and consequently you can get no definite result. Now,
I will go farther and I will challenge Dr. Wheatley to prove that
the tubercle bacillus is the origin of consumption at all.
(Laughter and applause).
Dr. Wheatley went on to diphtheria, and he said the anti-toxin
was very successful if it was injected before the attack
(Laughter). That was one of the most remarkable statements I
ever heard m my life. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Dr. Wheatley : I mean in the prevention of diphtheria it is
extremely successful if injected before the attack. If a case of
diphtheria breaks out and you inject it into the rest of the
family it prevents it occurring. (Applause.) This distortion of
statements is extremely unfair. (Hear, hear, and applause.)
Dr. Hadwen (to the Chairman) : Take the time, please sir.
because I am having my time wasted by these gentlemen in front,
(Continuing). Dr. Wheatley says it prevents the disease in the
members of the family who are going to have an attack. How
does he know they are going to have it? (Laughter and loud
Dr. Wheatley : Do you wish me to answer that ?
Dr. Hadwen : That is the sort of logic we anti-vivisectors
have to fight. (" Nonsense.") I guarantee if I were to take
scrapings of the throats here to-night I should be perfectly
justified in certifying many of you as suffering from diphtheria
to the Medical Officer of Health. ("No." I say yes, and I
have proved it. These gentlemen seem to talk as if they had all
the experience in the world. I am a medical man as well as
they. (Hear, hear, and applause.) I have had probably as much
experience in diphtheria as any man in this hall, and I know
what I am talking about. (Hear, hear.)
DIPHTHERIA AND SMALL-POX.
Now the whole of this antitoxin treatment is based upon the
germ theory of disease, and the germ theory in turn rests upon
the postulates of Koch, viz.: That the supposed specific germ
must always be found in association with the specific disease ;
that it must never be found apart from the disease, and that
when injected into the body of an animal it must produce a disease
of the same specific type. Now in the case of the alleged germ
of diphtheria, everyone or Koch's postulates is falsified. Con-
sequently, the antitoxin treatment has no scientific basis what-
ever to rest upon. Probably twenty or thirty per cent, of those
in front of me to-night have the diphtheria bacillus in their
throats at the present moment. (Laughter.)
Then, again, let us turn to the evidence of the Metropolitan
Asylums Board, and let us see what they have to say about the
subject. Only last January they published their statistics, and we
read that in the Brook Hospital they had 494 cases ; 359 were
treated with antitoxin, of which 41 died — fatality 1 1 '42. There
were 135 cases not treated with antitoxin, and all of them
recovered, but one, who died one minute after admission to the
Receiving Room. (" Quite Right.") What about anti-toxin there?
(Laughter, and hear, hear.) Furthermore, Prof. Woodhead
acknowledged before the Royal Commission that if the bacillus
is found, the injection of anti-toxin follows, without waiting for
the false membrane. That is, with every common sore throat, if
only they find the Klebs Loffier bacillus there, they at once inject
anti-toxin, and if the patient recovers, as our grandmothers
would have caused them to recover within 48 hours, then it is
glory be to anti-toxin. We have had thousands upon thousands
of sore throats in the present day magnified into " diphtheria,"
and the attributes of anti-toxin have been magnified accord-
ingly. (Hear, hear.) For ten years before anti-toxin the
death-rate per million from diphtheria was 200 ; the death-rate
per million for the ten years since increased to 235. Instead of
decreasing diphtheria, anti-toxin has increased it. In the Park
Hospital the doctors declared the death-rate was lower than ever
before, and that " it was to be attributed to the fact that so many
had bacteriological as distinguished from clinical diphtheria" : in
other words, a large number of sore throats had been thrown into
the count. They had a larger recovery, but the cases of genuine
diphtheria died off just the same. " There is nothing so fallacious
as statistics, unless it be facts!" (Cheers.)
As to small-pox, I can't go into that subject now on account
of time, except to say that probably I have seen more small-pox
and have visited more small-pox hospitals than any man in this
room — (laughter and applause) — and perhaps more than all the
medical men here put together. I have never taken small-pox
yet, and I have never been vaccinated. (Hear, hear, and loud
MR. PAGET'S SECOND SPEECH.
Mr. Paget, in closing, said : What is the good of ten
minutes ? How :can you answer a man who comes down here
prepared to call every member of his profession stupid? He
has said all this before : I have it here in the Press Cutting
book. He goes and tells it to any towns he thinks will swallow
it. I suppose he attributes a certain amount of importance to
it, but doctors do not. (Hear, hear.) His talk about anti-toxin
and diphtheria : compare that with the experience of older
physicians and surgeons who have seen the children die like flies
before anti-toxin was discovered. (Hear, hear.) Take what
happened to the King's sister — the Princess Alice and her
children. That could not happen now to children of the poorest
pauper in the slum ; they would be better protected. (Hear,
hear.) Take the anti-toxin in use in the Metropolitan Boards'
area. They served a population of 6,600,000 people, which gives
75 per cent, of the infectious fever cases. Do you think the men
there are fools, the men who year in and year out see the cases
and treat them, and have done it since anti-toxin was invented
in 1894 ? It has been in use 14 years, the cases being treated
with it are numbered by hundreds of thousands. All over the
world the thing is being tried ! Will Dr. Hadwen say the whole
world is a fool ? (Laughter, and hear, hear.) That is what it
comes to. If he denies that still, and we have to argue with
him, ask him how is it that the mortality falls not only in the
lighter cases, but in the dreadful cases of laryngeal diphtheria,
where the larynx is involved, in which case you have to do
tracheotomy ? I say the mortality from these cases was 75 or
80 per cent, before the days of anti-toxin. (Hear, hear.) He
cannot get out of it — he has got to say something to you and he
He can tell you all sorts of wonderful stories, but no one
will be able to answer him now ; he has got the last word to-
night. (Hear, hear.) He will leave you — he will leave behind
him that little shop on Pride Hill, that little shop which for
many weeks has been disgusting and shocking all Shrewsbury.
(Laughter, and Nurse Cross : " A fortnight.") I am thankful to
hear it is not more — with its lurid sensational pictures and its
false literature. You will have to alter the name of Pride Hill
and call it " Disgrace Hill," " Shame Hill," " Hill of Falsehood,"
" Hill of Lies." There is no other word for this anti-vivisection
literature. I have studied it for 20 years, and it is chock full of
lies. (A voice : Will you argue the points, sir? and applause.)
MYXCEDEMA AND MALTA FEVER.
I will take two diseases — myxcedema and Malta fever :
Myxcedema was discovered after many years' work. The work
was taken up by the London Clinical Society's Committee, and
then was discovered the use of thyroid extract. Now people are
cured by the thousand. The men and women who are
myxcedemic are slow, dull, cold, apathetic ; they lose their
memory, they lose their hearing, they get tired of their lives.
They are cured by thyroid extract. He says it is not thyroid —
it is the iodine. Well the Royal Society went into that, and they
did not mention iodine. Thyroiodine is something some German
invented many years after the other work had been done. There
is no answer. The people were cured, and they were not cured
until the mixture was introduced into apes. (Hear, hear, and
Take Malta Fever. It had been studied for years un-
successfully, and was the pest of the garrison. The discovery
of the germ of Malta Fever was worked out absolutely by the
inoculation of monkeys. Dr. Hadwen will deny that : he will
say that Sir David Bruce, who did it, is a fool. (Dr. Hadwen : No.)
Then you will say it was because they drained the harbour, and
if you say that how will you explain that it was prevalent all
over the place and not only around the harbour ? How do you
explain the fact that when they were studying the disease at
Netley and a man scratched his finger with a needle with which
he was going to inject a horse he cured himself by taking some
serum from the horse ? Can Dr. Hadwen account for that ? He
says germs do not cause the disease : if he believes that why
does he not submit to inoculation ? He can have his choice —
anthrax, tetanus, or anything else. (Laughter and applause.)
He says the germs don't cause the disease, that they look in
somehow afterwards, just to see what is going on. He will not
believe that germs cause these diseases. Well, if a man does not
believe that — when he says, " I challenge you to prove that the
earth is not flat, or to prove that two and two don't make five,"
which way is he to look ? No wonder he thinks doctors fools.
He has taken up a position absolutely unheard of. I believe
they did take up one man who said the same thing before the
Royal Commission — that makes two. I challenge Dr. Hadwen
to give us the names of ten doctors out of 30,000 who believe for
one moment, or could ever dream, even in a nightmare, of taking
the same view as he does of disease. (Laughter.) It is not
possible. (Hear, hear, and applause.) But he comes down here
— he did not know the doctors were coming here. He thought
he would get an ignorant audience and give them a nice address ;
he thought he would have it all his own way. (A voice : " He
is not far off now." Laughter and applause.) He may have his
own way to-night, but to-night is not the last word spoken on
this matter ; it is not the last word you will hear. You will hear
more of this. (Applause.)
AN AMUSING EPISODE.
[At this point Nurse Cross, Organizer of the British Union,
walked up the Hall and seated herself in a vacant chair on the
front row in front of Dr. Urwick, and as soon as the cheering of
the doctors had subsided, the following dialogue took place].
Nurse : " Mr. Paget, may I ask you a question ? "
Mr. Paget : " Eh, what is it ? "
Nurse : " May I ask you a question ? "
Mr. Paget : " Yes, what is it? "
Nurse : " Why have you come to Shrewsbury to-night, see-
ing that you have refused every challenge which Dr. Hadwen
has offered you to debate with him in London and elsewhere ? "
Mr. Paget : " I really don't understand you."
Nurse : Then I will repeat my question." (The question
was here repeated.)
Mr. Paget : " I suppose you mean, why has my Society — the
Research Defence Society, of which I am Hon. Secretary —
refused to accept any challenges from anti-vivisection societies ? "
Nurse : " No, I don't. I mean what I say." (The question
was again repeated.)
Mr. Paget : " Well, my Society—"
Nurse : " No, I don't mean your Society, I mean you " —
(after a pause) — '" y-o-u — you ! " (Cheers, and laughter.)
Nurse : " Is it not a fact, Mr. Paget, that you would not have
dared to face Dr. Hadwen to-night, had your father-in-law not
been a resident here and had you not been promised the support
of all the doctors in the town ? "
Nurse : " It is no use beating about the bush. You were
informed all about it. Dr. Urwick told me last night that all the
doctors in the town had arranged to come, and bring their wives
and children and servants, and here they are, and I say it is a
most unfair proceeding."
[Mr. Paget flung down his papers excitedly and resumed his
Dr. Urwick (to Nurse Cross) : " This is scandalous. You
have broken faith with me."
Nurse : " I have not. You asked me to say nothing about
the Research Defence Society, nor have I done so. Mr. Paget
did it himself." (Laughter and applause.)
DR. HADWEN'S FINAL REPLY.
Dr. Hadwen was received with rounds of applause. He
said : I consider the Nurse's question was perfectly justified.
Mr. Paget says in very blatant tones " You will hear more of
this." How are we going to hear more of this : will he be pre-
pared to come and properly debate these questions with me, or
will he not ? (Hear, hear, and applause.) I have challenged
Mr. Paget again and again to meet me on equal terms upon a
public platform, and he has always refused to do so except on
two occasions. The first occasion was at the British Institute of
Medicine. He put Prof. Starling in first with a 45 minutes'
speech. Mr. Paget followed with another 15 minutes. Prof.
Starling wound up with 35 minutes, and they gave me 15
minutes in between. (Laughter.) Down at Torquay a
month ago I challenged him to meet me on equal terms.
He refused. He had a meeting of his own next day — a ticket
meeting. It was advertised that they were going to meet the
arguments of the anti-vivisectionists — behind my back. We
asked to be allowed to go there and meet them. They said yes,
they would arrange a debate. How was it arranged? Mr.
Paget spoke for 45 minutes to start with, then a debate was
allowed for half-an-hour by six persons, three on each side, with
five minutes each. Then Mr. Paget was to have an unlimited
period to answer, and I received a letter to say that if Dr.
Hadwen liked to be one of the three to have five minutes in that
debate he could do so, but on no condition was his time limit to
be allowed to be exceeded. (Laughter.) That is the kind of
thing he calls fair play. (Shame.)
We have had this debate to-night, and I ask you, has a single
one of my arguments been met ? (" No " from the public, and
" Yes " from the doctors.) He has referred to our headquarters
shop on Pride Hill — the lurid, sensational pictures in the win-
dows. Let me tell you every one of the pictures has been
taken from the vivisectors' own books and drawn by the
vivisectors' own hands, and if they are sensational and
lurid, and if they are a disgrace to Shrewsbury, then they
must be a disgrace to the vivisectors themselves. (Hear,
hear, and loud applause.) He says our writings are chock full
of lies. (Mr. Paget : So thev are,) Let him prove a single one
of our statements to be such as he describes them. He has not
done so yet. (Hear, hear, and applause.)
He has given two illustrations. Myxcedema is simply
this : that where the thyroid gland is removed patients
get into what Sir William Gull called a cretinoid state.
As far back as in 1877 there were 18 cases of patients who
had their thyroid glands removed in Berne Hospital, and it
was found that they degenerated into a cretinoid condition,
that is, it resulted in myxcedema, and if that was proved as
far back as 1877, I want to know what they wanted to torture
a lot of monkeys for in 1884 to find out the same thing.
(Hear, hear.) If it was shown that with the thyroid gland you
don't get myxcedema, but without the thyroid gland you do get
myxcedema, why, bless me, it is plain enough without perpetra-
ting cruel experiments upon the most sensitive of the lower
animals. And if it was shown that by giving the thyroid gland
you improve the patient, why should you not give it ? There
is no torture in that. They take the thyroid gland as a by-
product from the butcher's shop, and there is no cruelty to
animals in that as long as sheep are killed for food.
Mr. Paget has declared that I will say " iodine " answers the
same purpose, and I do say so. (Laughter and applause.)
Prof. Baumann has isolated the active principle of the gland,
and has found that it is simply iodine in an organic specific
combination ; and let me tell you iodine was given for myxce-
dema 20 years before Sir Victor Horsley performed the cruel
experiments Mr. Paget has referred to to-night. Hence he has
discovered nothing. (Appause.)
Then about Malta Fever. That is one of those fairy tales
that have come to us from the country far over the sea.
(Laughter). I take simply one instance. They inoculated a
cultivation of the so-called Malta Fever germs into some goats ;
the germs multiplied as might be expected. That proved, said
Sir David Bruce, that Malta Fever was produced in those animals
because the germs were there. But he goes on to say they had
no fever at all ! He says they underwent no change, they ate
the same as before and they gave just as much milk. Surely
any charity boy would have concluded that if no fever was pro-
duced after the inoculation of some millions of germs, that germs
could have had nothing to do with producing Malta Fever. And
this opinion would be still further established when it was made
known that numbers of people had drunk goats milk without
contracting the disease.
Mr. Paget has referred to the harbour. The harbour has
been the despository of sewage for centuries. With better
sanitary precautions in the Island of Malta, Malta Fever began
to go down at the beginning of 1906, and other fevers which had
nothing to do with this germ, declined during the same period
showing that there was a common cause which was reducing all
the fevers in the island and that that common cause could be
nothing else than the better condition of sanitation. (Hear, hear.)
And this is what I say is one of the most serious matters in
connection with vivisection, that it takes the eye off the real
remedy for zymotic disease, viz., removing their causes, when the
effects will cease. Further let me say I consider it monstrous to
suppose that a great and a good and all-powerful God has so
arranged the plan of the universe as to make our freedom
from disease depend upon the torture of these poor
helpless and sensitive creatures who cannot defend themselves
against those who are stronger than they. (Hear, hear, and
applause). I am here to plead on behalf of those poor creatures
that cannot plead for themselves. Those creatures are dependent
upon us, we have no right because we are more powerful to adopt
the cowardly course of holding a sanguinary inquisition upon the
living bodies of fellow creatures as sentient and as sensitive as
There were cries of " time " from the medical men present,
and Dr. Hadwen sat down amid vociferous cheers.
Mr. Paget : May I move an amendment ? I think it is very
important that we should separate experiments under the Act
from other experiments.
The Chairman : I think it is out of order.
[A good deal of excitement and confusion occurred when the
vote was taken, many of the local doctors standing up in the
front row facing the audience, and a large portion of the audience
refrained from voting. The Chairman subsequently announced
that the resolution was defeated by about 30 votes.
Dr. Hadwen moved a vote of thanks to the Chairman, and
Mr. Roberts, replying, said he did not think they had ever had
such an intensely interesting debate in Shrewsbury for at least 14
years, and he thought it had been conducted in a very fair way.]
The British Union
for the Abolition of Vivisection.
Foundress: FRANCES POWER COBBE.
Hon. Sec. : Treasurer :
WALTER R. HADWEN, Esq., M.D. The Rt. Hon. Viscount HARBERTON.
Secretary: Miss B. E. KIDD.
Offices: 32 Charing Cross, London, S.W.
"To those of my readers who may desire to contribute to the
Anti= Vivisection Cause, and who have shared my views on it as set
forth in my numberless pamphlets and letters, and to those specially
who, like myself, intend to bequeath money to carry on the war
against scientific cruelty, I now earnestly say as my final counsel :
"Support the British Union."
—Autobiography of F. B. COBBE
In the case of benefactors desiring to bequeath legacies in sup-
port of the Cause, they are respectfully urged to clearly state in
their Wills, "The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection,"
and to make them payable to the Treasurer for the time being."
Form of Bequest.
To those who may he inclined to become Benefactors by Will to this Society,
the following form is respectfully suggested : —
_Z~ bequeath unto the Society called The British Union for the Abolition op
Vivisection, the sum of free of Legacy Duty,
and I direct that the same shall be paid to the Treasurer for the time being of such last-
mentioned Society, exclusively out of such part of my personal estate as may legally be
bequeathed for charitable purposes, and in priority to all other payments.
By virtue of the Act of Victoria, cap. 26, all Wills and Codicils must be in
writing, signed by the Testator, and attested by two witnesses in the presence of
the Testator and of each other.
A Donation of Five Pounds and upwards constitutes a Life Member.
An Annual Subscription of Ten Shillings constitutes an Annual Member.
Remittances by Crossed Cheque or Postal Order. Smaller Donations gratefully
An Annual Payment of 2s. 6d. constitutes an Associate of the Union.
Pamphlets by Dr. HADWEN.
Some Recent Vivisection Practices in English ^m. 100
Laboratories - 1/- 7/6
A Medical View of the Vivisection Question 2/- 12/6
Vivisection : Its Follies and Cruelties and
the Way to Fight it- = - = = 1/- 7/6
The Antitoxin Treatment of Diphtheria = 1/6 10/-
Vivisection at the Brown Institution - = 4d 2/3
The Cult of the Vivisector - - - - 4d. 2/3
The Humour of the Vivisector = = - 6d. 2/6
Tuberculosis and Cow's Milk = = =1/- 7/6
Was Jenner a Charlatan? = - - =1/- 7/6
Debate between Dr. Hadwen and Mr. Stephen
Paget - - = - = = =1/6 10/-
Debate between Dr. Hadwen & Dr. Eastham 1/- 7/6
Correspondence between Dr. Hadwen and
Sir Victor Horsley =- = = =!/- 7/6
Views of Men and Women of Note on the
Vivisection Question = = = == 2/- 12/6
(Illustrated with Portraits).
By Miss FRANCES POWER COBBE.
The Early History of the Anti-Vivisection Movement. 3d.
Why We Have Hounded the British Union, od. per doz.
Light in Dark Places. Gratis.
By BEATRICE E. KIDD.
Why We Object to a Restriction Bill. od. per doz. 5/- 100.
Anti= Vivisection Politics. 4d, per doz. 2/3 per 100.
Do You Know ? (Illustrated). 4d. per doz. 2/3 per 100.
By Miss A. F. WH1TELEY.
Some Medical Views of Vivisection. 3d. each, 2/= doz.
F. J. BROOKE, Printer and Bookbinder, 2 Westgate Street, Gloucester. 15153